politics – Page 2 – BRUCE AND HOLLY

Brexit, business, culture, history, Law, politics, society

Erasing 1000 Years of History

August 10, 2024 bruceandholly

Photo by RDNE Stock project on Pexels.com

Erasing 1000 years of history

One of the things I’ve noticed in the past couple of years is the appearance of cans of Carlsberg; Guinness and some other beers and lagers, which have been repackaged in larger pint-sized containers. So when you pour it out, it will reach the top of your glass. Just as if you were buying it draught.

What makes it legal in the UK to sell beer in pint-size cans is the fact that the 568ml equivalent is also displayed on the can. Just as a McDonalds quarter pounder doesn’t define its weight but is a trademark. A McDonalds quarter pounder’s actual legal weight in the UK is a minimum of 113.4 grammes uncooked. But for me, it will always be quarter pounder.

So why is it that when I buy a 454 gramme jar of strawberry jam, I am not allowed to call it a pound of jam? It is never labelled as such, even though for all practical purposes, 454 grammes is a pound of jam The welcome exception is MacKay’s 12-ounce (340 gramme) jars of jam and marmalade, which are labelled in this way. So why can’t other manufacturers label in the same way? Selling items in imperial units is not illegal provided that you label the stuff correctly.

The fact Is, that pint cans have never been part of the British tradition because, before metrication, off-sales of beer were in brown pint or quart bottles. The only notable canned beer which existed before metrication was the Watney’s Party 7 (and the smaller Party 4), which was sold in large cans which you could never open. And when you did manage to pierce the heavy-duty aluminium, the gaseous contents sprayed everywhere. From the 1970s onwards, most canned beers were sold in the horrible 440ml size, which doesn’t appear to convert to anything and which continues to be the standard size for most canned beers sold in the UK. Why 440 ml?

Currently, it is only the British Weights and Measures Association (which appears closely aligned to Brexit and Farage’s Reform Party) which is fighting to preserve use of imperial units and which is fighting a rearguard action against mandated metrication. But you don’t have to be an ardent Brexiteer or Faragist to regret the erasure of 1000 years of history. And there is nothing anti-Europe about wanting to preserve our industrial heritage. And the problem with rearguard actions is that they always fail, unless they buy time for something else to intervene.

Where imperial measurements still reign supreme, are in those parts of the world economy which have been traditionally dominated by the United States. And no mandated-metrication is ever going to change that. Which is why we buy 15-inch pizzas and eat 15-ounce steaks. Why we buy our McDonalds Quarter Pounders. Why we fly at 30,000 feet. Why heavyweight boxers still weigh themselves in pounds. And why you might buy a 56-inch TV for your living room.

business, housing, Law, London, politics, property, real estate, society

Kings Speech 2024 – What it means for conveyancers and other property professionals.

July 21, 2024 bruceandholly

Photo by SevenStorm JUHASZIMRUS on Pexels.com

King’s Speech 2024 – what it means for conveyancers and other property professionals.

We are not talking about the big-ticket stuff – like House of Lords reform. Instead, we are focusing on the small-print in the Starmer agenda. The things which are likely to affect our day-to-day work. We also mention things which we would have expected to see mentioned in the King’s Speech, on which there has so far been silence. Here are the things which interest us.

A Planning and Infrastructure Bill

This is exciting. For too long, the ‘no’ lobby has been in the ascendancy. And all at a time of housing crisis. Planning has become two politicised. Planning pre-conditions have become long shopping lists, within a process which has become like treacle. Even so, the government’s announced proposals for reforming the planning system are modest: with the restoration of house-building targets and the reclassification of some parts of the green belt. When what is really required is a speeding up of the whole planning process. Which shouldn’t be problematic for a self-financing public service. We’re sure many developers would be willing to pay a little bit extra by way of planning-fees, to pay for the additional staff needed to get their applications through the system. And if it is blocked by local politicians, to get it quickly in front of a government-appointed planning inspector. Why should that be difficult?

Leasehold Reform

Some of it we have heard before. Like replacing a leasehold system which has existed for more than 1000 years by a new system of commonhold. The legislation already exists in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002. But it didn’t work when Tony Blair tried to introduce it more than 20 years ago. Because nobody wanted it. So why will it work now? Despite its imperfections, residential leasehold is the most workable system for selling flats and maisonettes. So wouldn’t it be better just to make the reforms needed to get the existing residential leasehold system right, instead of trying to force something which nobody wants. At the moment, we are waiting for the new government to bring into force detailed provisions of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which received royal assent in the last days of the Conservative government. But it is not just about bringing it into force, because the detail will be in the regulations which, as far as we’re aware, have yet to be published. So there is some work for the new government to do before that legislation can take effect. We are also expecting the new government to waste no time in pushing forward with the Renters Reform Bill, which had been tabled by the previous Conservative government but dropped as soon as the general election was called. It always seemed to us that the last government’s commitment to removing section 21 no-fault evictions was always a little half-hearted, we assume because of the landlord-lobby. Funny thing about the section 21 evictions process, was that it was not seen as problematic in 1989 when the private-rented sector was opened up, because the residential market was so different, with residential landlords competing with each other for the best tenants, not the other way round, as it is today. It meant that if, in 1989, you were a reputable tenant who was unlucky enough to be given the section 21 notice of eviction, there would be dozens of other potential landlords bidding to accommodate you. And remember, that in 1988, most councils still had their social rented stock.

Absences

As well as the reforms which the new government has announced, there are also some things missing, which we would have expected to find within the King’s Speech or other government announcements. We are surprised that there has been no mention at all of any scaling back of right-to-buy, not even from the crazy discounts introduced by the Cameron government. What is scandalous is that up to 40% of ex-right-to-buy properties are now in the hands of private landlords, meaning that local authorities are having to rent back ex-right-to-buy properties on their own estates, just to meet their statutory housing needs. What nonsense is that? Is our system of housing benefits really so generous that it can afford to throw money at private landlords, because there is no longer any significant affordable rented sector? No wonder first-time buyers and private renters have been priced out of the housing market. The other thing, for which there has been no mention, is any revamp of the measures brought in by the Gordon Brown government to bring long-term empty dwellings back into occupational use. The problem with Brown’s empty dwellings management orders, was that the whole process was too cumbersome to be of any use. At the last count there were approximately 260,000 empty dwellings in the UK. What a waste!

Legislative Agenda

We have also taken a few moments to look at the government bills which are currently before Parliament. Presently, there are only five government bills, most of which we think are uncontroversial. These include a new Arbitration Bill, building on the existing 1996 legislation, to restore London as the world’s arbitration capital. Who is going to argue with that? And there is also the bill to re-nationalise Britain’s railways. With only four clauses, this bill is astonishingly short for what has become one of the new government’s landmark policies. It does no more than prohibit a re-letting of existing railway franchises except to a government-owned company.

Brexit, Law, politics

General Election – But Don’t Expect a Big Bang

June 9, 2024 bruceandholly

General elections are always an exciting time for lawyers. Particularly when a new government – with new ideas – is almost a dead cert. Out with the old. And in with the new. But if you are expecting a ‘big bang’ on 5th July 2024, you’ll be disappointed. Once the initial furore of a new administration has died down, there will be a lull for a couple of months, when almost nothing happens. Then there will be the ‘Queen’s’, I’m sorry, the ‘King’s’ speech, when the new government will outline its legislative programme. So what are we likely to see in that legislative programme?

Well for a start, I would expect to see the Renter’s Reform Bill coming back to the floor of the House and pushed through to royal assent. Also, secondary legislation to bring into force the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024, which received royal assent in the dying days of the Sunak government. So I thought that I’d look at the Labour Party Manifesto just to see what we’ve got in store. Nothing much, it hasn’t yet been launched. Just a few generalisations about economic stability; reducing NHS waiting lists; new border controls; setting up a new energy company; cracking down on anti-social behaviour and recruiting more teachers. Is anyone going to argue with that? And haven’t we heard all that before? If I turn to the Lib Dem manifesto, I discover that Ed Davey is going to launch this at 11am tomorrow. And all while falling off a surfboard. I shan’t be tuning in.

housing, Law, London, politics, property, society, Uncategorized

Right to Buy Service Charges

May 5, 2024 bruceandholly

Thousands of people have done well out of Margaret Thatcher’s right to buy, including Labour’s Angela Rayner. But not everyone has been so lucky. Amongst the least-lucky are those leaseholders who purchased high-rise flats under right-to-buy and are now facing sky-high service charges. Amongst those, are the leaseholders in Verulam House in Hammersmith Grove who are facing service charges of between £17,500 and £21,500 for window replacements which they say are not needed. One of the problems for right-to-buy leaseholders is that although they are the ones picking up the bills, they have little say in the matter because they will always be in a minority.

Although residential leaseholders now have extensive rights to take over the management of their flats, they can only do this by acting collectively. For example, the statutory ‘right to manage’, introduced by the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, can only apply where a majority of qualifying leaseholders are on board with it. But this is of no help to right-to-buy leaseholders where the majority of flats in a high-rise block are still owned by the local authority and let out as social housing. The most, to which those right-to-buy leaseholders are entitled, is the right to be consulted over proposed service charges under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. But even this right to be consulted, is cut down for right-to-buy leaseholders because they do not have the same right to nominate their own contractor as is enjoyed by other private leaseholders. And even the prices may be higher as councils are constrained in their choice of contractor because of the need to comply with rigid procurement regulations, which means that they cannot shop around for the best deal.

Law, medical, politics

Covid-19 Inquiry. The Unanswered Questions

June 28, 2023 bruceandholly

What point was Hancock actually trying to make at the Covid-19 inquiry, when he talks about ‘doctrinal failures’ with an emphasis on cleaning up after a pandemic instead of preventing it from happening? Is he saying that Britain should have locked down even harder and faster? So why didn’t he just say so? Why wasn’t he challenged on what he was really trying to say? More importantly, why wasn’t he challenged about leaked messages suggesting he favoured “scaring the pants off everyone”? Well it didn’t scare the pants off me.

For me, Hancock’s evidence was just too hand-wringing; too vague; and too short on specifics. It just didn’t get to the point. Who cares about his personal feelings? We want facts. And it all went unchallenged. It was all too ‘polite’ for my liking. Too cosy.

My worry is that is that the key questions regarding the justification for repeated lockdowns; mask-wearing; and standing in line outside supermarkets will not even be addressed at this public inquiry. Instead, it will assume that every one of these measures was necessary because that was the policy which the government had decided to follow. Even though the government was being led by the nose and was frightened of being seen as out of step with other jurisdictions, even with Nicola Sturgeon. And there was no opposition. Any alternative view was quickly shut down. We also know that the inquiry won’t even have the most crucial evidence to determine how these decisions were made.

Yes-Boris Johnson has surrendered his WhatsApp messages to the inquiry. But these only go back to April 2021. What is the point of that? Instead, we had the excuse that his earlier phone had been compromised. But those earlier messages must still exist somewhere in the ether? And what’s all this about the government bringing legal proceedings against its own inquiry to stop information going into the public domain? We want to know what messages were exchanged between ministers and top civil servants at the beginning, in March 2020, when government policy suddenly changed from herd immunity to lockdown. If it was all just to “scare the pants off us”, we need to know.

The real message I take from Partygate was that those at the top of government who were attending those lockdown parties knew that they weren’t putting their health at risk. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing it. So why the pretence? Why impose restrictions on everyone else?

Yes-we all know someone who has died of covid. Just as we all know people who have died of heart attacks. Of cancer. Of suicide. But I’m sure that no account will be taken of that at the public inquiry. Nor of young people who studied for years for examinations which they were never allowed to sit. A teacher-assessment is never a substitute for a robust external examination. It’s too subjective. And will anyone challenge the nonsense of closing down someone’s livelihood whilst at the same time printing money out of a bankrupt economy to pay them to stay at home? And then there’s the fraud. The cronyism. If we can’t afford to pay nurses, how could we have afforded to pay for that? And why did covid quickly become the excuse for any poor customer service? “It’s covid innit.”

Perhaps I’m wrong. Maybe later in the inquiry we will get some serious questioning of the knee-jerk policies which caused so much damage to so many people as they swung backwards and forwards? Maybe. But I’m not going to put money on it.